Random Cubing Discussion

[Mike Hughey]

I wanted to bring this up:
The reason I think that skewb should always be an unofficial event because the times are so inconsistent, at least with my method. You can have a 40 second NL, and also have a 15 second NL. The averages would be so inaccurate. That is just my opinion.

Other methods allow it to be much more consistent. Anyone who's good at it would be pretty consistent. But I must admit that lucky skewb solves will be overwhelmingly fast. I would expect some sub-2 skewb solves if people got serious about it.

 

[qqwref]

I guess that is a conceivable problem with Skewb, though. It would be similar to Pyraminx and 2x2 in that lucky solves matter a lot when someone's not so fast, and not very much when someone is very experienced.

 

[Kirjava]

The reason I think that skewb should always be an unofficial event because the times are so inconsistent

This is just you. Sure, you can get lucky singles - but this is the same as every other event.

 

[Edward]

I wanted to bring this up:
The reason I think that skewb should always be an unofficial event because the times are so inconsistent, at least with my method. You can have a 40 second NL, and also have a 15 second NL. The averages would be so inaccurate. That is just my opinion.

So you're saying that because you can lucky singles that are below your usual level of skill, it shouldn't be an official event? Might as well get rid of everything but FMC...

 

[aronpm]

I wanted to bring this up:
The reason I think that skewb should always be an unofficial event because the times are so inconsistent, at least with my method. You can have a 40 second NL, and also have a 15 second NL. The averages would be so inaccurate. That is just my opinion.

So you're saying that because you can lucky singles that are below your usual level of skill, it shouldn't be an official event? Might as well get rid of everything but FMC...

You can get lucky in FMC too.

*cough CFOP with LL skip cough*

 

[irontwig]

Yeah, a lot of FMC techniques revolve around the idea of getting more chances at getting lucky at a particular scramble.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Uh, yeah, I think FMC is one of the worst events for unreasonably lucky solves. I know my current personal best of 31 moves was ridiculously lucky.

 

[Tim Reynolds]

Example solve for Kyle;

F2 R L U' B2 F' D B F L2 D F' U F2 U D L' B2 L2 U R U' D' R2 U2

1) U B' L F L F' L2 F2 L' F R U' x2
2) R' D2 L2 D F D R2 U2 R'
3) R2 B R' U B U2 R2 U R B' U y
4) R2 U2 F R F' U' R2 F' U' F U' R2 U2
5) R' U R U R' U2 R U' R' U' R U2

(this post is a bit old, but oh well)

That method looks interesting. I might be interested in exploring it a bit. I'm guessing you haven't generated many algs for it yet?

How easy is it to make a layer? I've never experimented with that at all. I'm afraid I'd end up just doing cross and corners, or taking forever to block build stupidly.

 

[Kirjava]

Example solve for Kyle;

F2 R L U' B2 F' D B F L2 D F' U F2 U D L' B2 L2 U R U' D' R2 U2

1) U B' L F L F' L2 F2 L' F R U' x2
2) R' D2 L2 D F D R2 U2 R'
3) R2 B R' U B U2 R2 U R B' U y
4) R2 U2 F R F' U' R2 F' U' F U' R2 U2
5) R' U R U R' U2 R U' R' U' R U2

(this post is a bit old, but oh well)

That method looks interesting. I might be interested in exploring it a bit. I'm guessing you haven't generated many algs for it yet?

How easy is it to make a layer? I've never experimented with that at all. I'm afraid I'd end up just doing cross and corners, or taking forever to block build stupidly.

I used to have most of the algs for step 2 when I was learning it. They're lost to time now though.

You can probably average 2.5 seconds for making a layer.

 

[qqwref]

Huh, look a' this.

(F R' F' r U R U' r') (R U' R') (F R' F' R) y' (R' U R) (B' R B R')

 

[StachuK1992]

Who wants some 2GLL algs?

(note - I wrote this in Notepad++ as a .py file, so the formatting is a bit off...
so go get notepad++, or just deal with it )

Average move-count for the algs I've chosen - 13.18 moves.

If you don't understand stuff (like my, erm 'notation') please let me know.

 

[Robert-Y]

It's a bit hard to describe my idea I just had so I'll just provide some algs for now

L R U2 R' L'
y L' R' U2 R L
L U' R' u' R2 u R U L'
L2 F2' U L' r' U2' R2 B R2' U2'
L2 F2' L2' U M2' U M2' U M U2 M'

 

[Anonymous]

It's a bit hard to describe my idea I just had so I'll just provide some algs for now

L R U2 R' L'
y L R U2 R' L'
L U' R' u' R2 u R U L'
L2 F2' U L' r' U2' R2 B R2' U2'
L2 F2' L2' U M2' U M2' U M U2 M'

Insert the two pairs in the wrong positions using VHF2L and Winter's Variation, then permute last layer as you switch them?

My interpretation is probably stupid.

 

[Edward]

U D F' R2 F' U' L' R B U' D R2 F' D2 R' F2 B' L' D B F R U F' L2

x' L' F D L x' u F' u'
R U2 R' U' L' U L
U' L U' L' U2 R' U' R
F' U F L U' L' U2 l U L' U' M'
R U' R' U R U R'
U2
R U R' U' R' F R F'
PLL


And who cares about my movecount when it feels good. What you need is some real manhood...

 

[StachuK1992]

~

your xs are backwards. like x = x', etc

 

[Edward]

~

your xs are backwards. like x = x', etc

Oh, thank you, fix'd.

 

[qqwref]

It's a bit hard to describe my idea I just had so I'll just provide some algs for now

L R U2 R' L'
y L' R' U2 R L
L U' R' u' R2 u R U L'
L2 F2' U L' r' U2' R2 B R2' U2'
L2 F2' L2' U M2' U M2' U M U2 M'

I like this idea I bet most of the algs will be icky, though. Here are a few more:

A: (x' r2) U2 l' U' l U2 r' U r D2 r2
G: (x' R2) U2 (x r2) R' U R' B2 R U' R' F2 r2
T: L' R2 D' R U2 R' D R2 L
J: L' U R' U2 L U' R

 

[Robert-Y]

From qqwref's alg: I found this:

T: x' r' R2 U' R z' R2' U' L U2 u

 

[qqwref]

That alg is horrible.

 

[Robert-Y]

It can't be that bad if I can sub-2 it consistently and it's basically like an A perm...

Btw Keemy and I looked for funny f2l thing + EPLLs. They suck, don't bother wasting your time trying to find something good